from the the-infernal-machine dept

Late in 2012, two mentally-ill minors were taken from their cells at Rikers and beaten by a shift captain and multiple guards, who took turns punching the two inmates while they were restrained. A jail clinician reported seeing one of them being punched in the head while handcuffed to a gurney. Another clinician said she saw staff striking the other while he screamed for them to stop hurting him. One of the two told consultants he was still spitting up blood "more than a month after the incident."

This was prompted by the inmates' refusal to "comply with earlier search procedures" and for "throwing urine" on guards. When questioned about this retaliatory beating by a prison physician, the captain said the inmates had banged their own heads against the wall. Other statements gathered infer that those involved pressured clinic staff to corroborate this story. The official report said simply: "The inmates were escorted to the clinic without further incident or force used."

We've long since dismissed the idea that the prison system offers any sort of reform or rehabilitation. Instead, it's a place where people are sent to be forgotten, broken down or completely destroyed. The Rikers Island prison in New York is no exception, but it does "offer" something many others don't. Because New York law treats everyone 16 and up as adults when it comes to criminal charges, minors are sent into the general population to co-exist with those with years or decades of criminal experience under their belts.

But there should be someone acting as a force of good, or at least neutrality, inside the prison: the guards. According to the DOJ's investigation of Rikers Island, those tasked with watching the prison population are indistinguishable from the long-term inhabitants. And those perceived as weakest -- the newly-imprisoned minors -- are targeted most frequently.

In the driest terms, the DOJ breaks down the problems at Rikers.

We conclude that there is a pattern and practice of conduct at Rikers that violates the constitutional rights of adolescent inmates. In particular, we find that adolescent inmates at Rikers are not adequately protected from harm, including serious physical harm from the rampant use of unnecessary and excessive force by DOC staff. In addition, adolescent inmates are not adequately protected from harm caused by violence inflicted by other inmates, including inmate-on-inmate fights. Indeed, we find that a deep-seated culture of violence is pervasive throughout the adolescent facilities at Rikers, and DOC staff routinely utilize force not as a last resort, but instead as a means to control the adolescent population and punish disorderly or disrespectful behavior. Moreover, DOC relies far too heavily on punitive segregation as a disciplinary measure, placing adolescent inmates—many of whom are mentally ill—in what amounts to solitary confinement at an alarming rate and for excessive periods of time.

This opening statement is alarming, but the devil is in the details, as they say. And Rikers' staff are operating at near-Satanic levels.

Based on a review of Department 24-hour reports from October 2012 through early April 2014, we identified 64 incidents involving blows to an adolescent inmate’s head or face. This is undoubtedly an underestimate of the number of headshots during this period, because 24hour reports contain only initial incident summaries prepared by staff themselves. Indeed, our review of incidents and witness interviews suggest that headshots were utilized far more frequently during this period. However, the fact that these summaries so often openly refer to headshots is disturbing.

Our consultant reported that headshots are far more common at Rikers than at any other correctional institution he has observed. In many instances, correction officers readily admit hitting inmates but claim they acted in self-defense after being punched first by the inmate. As a threshold matter, even when an inmate strikes an officer, an immediate retaliatory strike to the head or face is inappropriate. Moreover, there is often reason to question the credibility of the officer’s account. These incidents also disproportionately occur in locations without video surveillance, making it difficult to determine what transpired.

Those who intimately know the system know how to abuse it. The report details incident after incident that cannot be fully confirmed because it occurred out of view of the cameras. This is no accident. Inmate-on-guard violence can almost always be quantified because the inmate either doesn't know the camera's full scope or just doesn't care. But guards who want to hide their violent acts know where to go to escape the pervasive surveillance.

Where video exists, [there is a] failure to describe the events on the video. Often there is just a summary statement that the video was reviewed and consistent with officers’ use of force reports. Because video recordings so frequently go missing, as described above, without an accurate and detailed description of the video recording, there is no longer any objective record of the incident.

They also know how to deploy CYA phrases for beatings with witnesses, a little trick often used by abusive police officers.

While utilizing force, staff often yell “stop resisting” even though the adolescent has been completely subdued or, in many instances, was never resisting in the first place. This appears intended to establish a record that the continued use of force is necessary to control the inmate. Officers who witness the incident also frequently report that they heard the inmate was resisting, even though that is false.

In law enforcement, "stop resisting" is a mantra to be chanted while swinging fists, batons or anything else that might inflict pain. Rikers Island fits right in with its brothers on the outside.

This list neatly summarizes the brutal force that is the Rikers Island staff:

force is used against adolescents at an alarming rate and violent inmate-on-inmate fights and assaults are commonplace, resulting in a striking number of serious injuries;

correction officers resort to “headshots,” or blows to an inmate’s head or facial area, too frequently;

force is used as punishment or retribution;

force is used in response to inmates’ verbal altercations with officers;

use of force by specialized response teams within the jails is particularly brutal;

correction officers attempt to justify use of force by yelling “stop resisting” even when the adolescent has been completely subdued or was never resisting in the first place; and

use of force is particularly common in areas without video surveillance cameras.

The long report details numerous, extremely violent incidents, like this one:

In August 2013, four adolescent inmates were reportedly brutally beaten by multiple officers. Based on accounts provided by the inmates, several officers assaulted the inmates, punching and kicking them and striking them with radios, batons, and broomsticks. The beating continued for several minutes after the inmates already had been subdued and handcuffed. The inmates were then taken to holding pens near the clinic intake where they were beaten again by several DOC Gang Intelligence Unit members, who repeatedly punched and kicked them while the inmates were handcuffed. Two of the inmates reported that they had lost consciousness or blacked out during the incident. The officers’ written statements assert that the inmates instigated the fight and they used force only to defend themselves. The Department’s investigation of the incident was ongoing at the time this letter was prepared. The inmates sustained multiple injuries, including a broken nose, a perforated eardrum, head trauma, chest contusions, and contusions and injuries to the head and facial area.

And chillingly matter-of-fact footnotes point to the pervasive culture of violence maintained by Rikers staff.

The ultimate problem here is that the DOJ could investigate nearly every prison in the country and come away with reports nearly as damning. A severe imbalance of power, only occasionally addressed by very minimal checks or repercussions, leads directly to this sort of behavior.

The violence is abhorrent. That it's often directed at the weakest members of the prison population is even more so. And the staff knows what it's doing is completely wrong. The report shows that staff falsified reports, destroyed recordings, instructed clinic staff to corroborate their lies, told visiting teaching staff to "look away" from violent incidents (and keep their students from viewing these beatings as well) and failed to investigate questionable reports in a thorough or timely fashion.

Going to prison is never expected to be a pleasant experience, but one would hope they only needed to watch out for their fellow inmates. The Rikers staff's behavior ensures there is no safe haven inside its walls.

from the bwah? dept

As you may recall, when the FBI wrote up its National Gang Threat Assessment report in 2011, it ridiculously included the Juggalos, better known as fans of The Insane Clown Posse. And while certain Juggalos may, at times, get a bit rowdy, declaring all of them to be a gang clearly went too far. Yet, including them in the National Gang Threat Assessment report is kind of a big deal. That's because law enforcement agencies actually pay attention to the FBI report and use it as a guideline for policy, resulting in a bunch of music fans experiencing very real police action. Officers citing the report questioned, searched, and otherwise harassed ICP fans where they otherwise would not have. That led to the ACLU and ICP teaming up in a lawsuit to get the Juggalos dropped from the report and get relief from law enforcement agencies everywhere now operating under the belief that a group of passionate music fans were somehow a criminal organization.

Justice Department attorney Amy Powell said the group and its fans have no standing to sue. She said the government is not responsible for how police agencies use information in the 2011 national gang report. Powell said a "subjective chill" as alleged by plaintiffs was not enough to be in court.

"There is no general right of protection to a social association," she said, referring to First Amendment violations argued by Insane Clown Posse and its fans.

It's an interesting theory to put forth, that the FBI, essentially the king of domestic police agencies, has no culpability for local police using its report, which included the demonizing of music fans. In other words, the FBI can simply label any group it likes a gang organization without recourse. Local police will, of course, simply point back to the report when questioned about their activities, and now we have a recursive loop of non-responsibility. I'm pretty sure that's some kind of government agency golden egg.

As for there being no right of protection to a social association in the First Amendment, I mean...it does say no law shall be made prohibiting the right of peaceful assembly. If gang laws lead to the FBI putting out a report that causes law enforcement to continually harass groups of citizens not committing any crime, how many degrees of separation from Congress do we have to go before the First Amendment doesn't matter any longer?

In addition, the DOJ also claimed that its latest gang list no longer includes the Juggalos, and believes that law enforcement will no longer make use of the 2011 one, so everyone should just chill out. In short: "bygones." According to the DOJ, it's fine for the FBI to label a group of music fans a criminal gang and have its members harassed for a bit, just so long as, by the time a lawsuit comes about, the FBI no longer considers them a gang.

In the key findings of the report (PDF and Embedded Below) the NGIC lays out its primary concern over the technology used by gangs:

Gangs are becoming increasingly adaptable and sophisticated, employing new and advanced technology to facilitate criminal activity discreetly, enhance their criminal operations and connect with other gang members, criminal organizations, and potential recruits nationwide and even worldwide.

Basically, the concern is that the internet has allowed gangs to move outside neighborhoods and cities and spread their influence throughout the world. That can be a concern for law enforcement, but do we really need to worry this much about it?

Gang members routinely utilize the Internet to communicate with one another, recruit, promote their gang, intimidate rivals and police, conduct gang business, showcase illegal exploits, and facilitate criminal activity... Social networking, microblogging, and video-sharing websites - such as Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter - are now more accessible, versatile, and allow tens of thousands of gang members to easily communicate, recruit and form new gang alliances nationwide and world wide.

So here the NGIC lays out some more specific concerns over the use of social networking. Yet, aside from the criminal activity portions of this complaint, the same could be said of any group that is trying to spread its message. Take for instance the recent Occupy Wall Street movement. It started in New York and has now spread throughout the US primarily by the use of the same social network sites listed as used by gangs. Looking further back at the Spring Uprising in the Middle East and Africa, they too used social networking to build their protests. It should really come to no surprise to anyone that the same tools used by peaceful groups would also be employed by gangs and other violent groups.

Luckily, the report does not go as far as suggesting any kind action plan on just what to do about this technology employed by gangs. Based on recent actions in the US, such as that taken by BART, we would probably see more calls for removing anonymity, expanded monitoring capabilities and the ability to shut off such services if they are used by gangs and their members. Much like the attempts to thwart piracy through legislation such as SOPA/PROTECT-IP, such a move will not stop any law breaking group or person from doing what they do. Such a move will only harm the law abiding citizens and groups that rely on such tools for communication. This is a lesson that many people in the government continue to fail to learn.

from the minority-report? dept

A few folks sent over this report of efforts by some researchers at UCLA to create an algorithm that can accurately take data on existing gang-related crimes, and use it to predict what gangs were involved in new crimes. It certainly has that "minority report -- pre-crime" feel to it, though I can certainly see where it could be useful. What concerns me, though, is that systems like this are only as accurate as the data they use. And, as has been reported elsewhere, one of the unintended consequences of such computer analysis of crime data is that it drives police departments to falsify or change crime reports in order to make their own numbers look better. So it makes you wonder how accurate those reports will be if the incentives to fudge the actual crime data continue to be in place.

from the bloods,-crips-and-paladins dept

Basically, a guy who is serving a life sentence for murder, Kevin Singer, was apparently an avid D&D player as well, and had a collection of D&D books and related paraphernalia. However, it was confiscated by the prison after another prisoner complained that Singer was building a "gang" around D&D.

...Waupun's long-serving Disruptive Group
Coordinator, Captain Bruce Muraski, received an anonymous
letter from an inmate. The letter expressed concern
that Singer and three other inmates were forming a D&D
gang and were trying to recruit others to join by passing
around their D&D publications and touting the "rush" they
got from playing the game. Muraski, Waupun's expert on
gang activity, decided to heed the letter"s advice and
"check into this gang before it gets out of hand."

Singer and the other prisoners named in the letter filed a complaint about the confiscation, and then a lawsuit. Singer got numerous experts to explain that D&D is not related to gang activity. The court claims that some of those experts actually claimed otherwise, but the interpretation here is fuzzy. The court says that these experts disagreed with Singer's assertions because they claimed that D&D could keep people away from gang activity, and thus it's "connected" to gang activity. I can't see how this makes any sense at all. By that reasoning anything that someone does that keeps them away from joining a gang is automatically considered, itself, a gang activity. How does that make sense?

Muraski
elaborated that during D&D games, one player is denoted
the "Dungeon Master." The Dungeon Master is tasked with
giving directions to other players, which Muraski
testified mimics the organization of a gang. At bottom, his
testimony about this policy aim highlighted Waupun's
worries about cooperative activity among inmates, particularly
that carried out in an organized, hierarchical fashion.
Muraski's second asserted governmental interest in the
D&D ban was inmate rehabilitation. He testified that D&D
can "foster an inmate's obsession with escaping from the
real life, correctional environment, fostering hostility,
violence and escape behavior," which in turn "can compromise
not only the inmate's rehabilitation and effects of
positive programming but also endanger the public and
jeopardize the safety and security of the institution."

Read that a couple times. The argument is basically that (1) any activity that involves a hierarchy mimics gang activity and thus can be barred and (2) anything that lets inmates have an imagination might hurt their chances at rehabilitation. The court seems to suggest that part of the problem is that Singer failed to directly answer specific questions or make the specific points he needed to in order to prevail -- which is entirely possible. However, it still seems like a silly result all around.

from the guilty-by-myspace-association dept

Gangs and gang violence may be a serious problem in some areas, but does that mean we should make people guilty based on very loose associations? Venkat Balasubramani has a post about a recent appeals court ruling in Ohio, in which some defendants were convicted of "participation in criminal gang activity," almost entirely based on their MySpace friends and photographs. The police officers initially testified that gang members were using social networking sites more and more frequently, and then went full on charging guilt by association:

Officer Criss . . . noted [defendants] were friends on MySpace. Mr. Owens was pictured in two photographs on Mr. McCraney's MySpace page. In one of the photographs, Mr. Owens was wearing all black and he was standing with several other people who were wearing all black, or black and red. Further, several of the people in the photograph were displaying gang hand signs. The other photograph from Mr. McCraney's page depicted [defendants, along with] a known gang member.

Officer Criss also discussed photographs taken from Mr. Owens' own MySpace page. One of the photographs depicted Mr. Owens in a red hat and a fur coat. Officer Criss said this was significant because red is a gang color and the fur coat is a status symbol in the gang community. In addition, Mr. Owens' gold teeth were also alluded to as being a status symbol. Another photograph from Mr. Owens' MySpace page depicted Mr. Owens holding a large sum of cash and wearing red and black clothing. Further, dollar signs are superimposed all over the photograph. Again Officer Criss stated that red and black are associated with the Bloodline gangs and the money symbols and the display of a large amount of cash represented that Mr. Owens was able to get large sums of money.

This was pretty much the crux of the evidence of gang activity. The court also heard that one of the defendants had a previous conviction for dealing marijuana, and the police noted that "gangs primarily are involved with the sale of drugs," but no other evidence was used to tie that conviction to any actual gang activity. That seems like incredibly thin evidence, but the court decided that it was sufficient to prove criminal gang activity.

One judge dissented, noting just how thin the evidence appeared to be:

Essentially, the majority's decision allows one to conclude that someone actively participates in a criminal gang if that person has committed theft or drug crimes in the past, wears one color associated with a gang, and associates with people who are in a gang or who make gang hand signs. I also find it troubling that the majority suggests that despite the lack of evidence concerning the significant indicators of participation in gang activity, the gap in the evidence is satisfied simply because an officer stated that he believed Mr. Owens actively participated in a criminal gang.

That judge also details how even the thin evidence was even thinner than the court suggested. It noted that none of the photographs with gang members even appeared on this guy's own MySpace website, but on another's. And he wasn't seen making the gang hand signs in any of them -- others are. In other words, if you're in a photo on a social network with people making gang signs and wearing some rather common colors that are also associated with a gang, you can be convicted of criminal gang activities. That doesn't seem right.

from the seems-a-bit-harsh dept

Dealing with gang activity is certainly a priority in areas beset by gang violence, but does that mean we throw out certain First Amendment rights? Last year, Florida passed a new anti-gang law that banned using electronic communications "for the purpose of benefiting, promoting, or furthering the interests of a criminal gang" and that included "advertis[ing] his or her presence in the community" via an online image or video. Apparently, authorities in Florida have now arrested 15 people under this law based on their MySpace profiles, including one 14-year-old who "posted pictures of himself dressed in gang colors and displaying gang hand signals." For this, all of those arrested now face up to 5 years in prison. Some are already protesting the constitutionality of this law. It certainly seems like a limit on free expression.

Even recognizing the problems with gang violence, it seems a bit extreme to arrest people and threaten them with jailtime just for posting such photos on their profiles. Why not use that information to track and monitor certain gang members to try to stop actual illegal gang activity? Here are kids advertising to anyone (including the police) that they're in a gang, which should make it easier for the police to follow them and use that info to deal with real gang activity.

from the what-goes-around,-comes-around dept

Mexican drug-related violence has been in the news a lot in the last month, so perhaps it's no surprise that USA Today is running a big article about how Mexican gangs and drug cartels use YouTube to communicate and spread messages of intimidation. Of course, two years ago, a bunch of similar stories made the news. The good news, though, is that rather than freaking out about it and demanding YouTube remove the videos, both Mexican and American officials are monitoring the videos to try to pick up clues to gang activities.

from the but-of-course dept

Various laws have allowed local governments to declare specific property "detrimental to public health & safety" when that property becomes overrun with drugs, gangs, prostitution or gambling. However, the entertainment industry's hometown gov't in Los Angeles has now expanded the list to include music and movie piracy as well. Whatever you think of unauthorized copying of content, it's difficult to see how you can, with a straight face, claim that it is the equivalent of property being overrun with drugs, gangs prostitution or gambling.